Your search found 56 results.

Descriptors:
Disadvantaged Youth; Early Childhood Education; Limited English Speaking; Child Care; Access to Education; Educational Quality; School Readiness; Federal Programs; Student Participation; Surveys; Data Analysis; Interviews; Mothers; Access to Information

Abstract:
Questions have been raised about whether parents with limited English proficiency are having difficulty accessing child care and early education programs for their children. Research suggests that quality early care experiences can greatly improve the school readiness of young children. GAO was asked to provide information on: (1) the participation of these children in programs funded through the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) and Head Start; (2) the challenges these families face in accessing programs; (3) assistance that selected state and local entities provide to them; and (4) actions taken by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to ensure program access. To obtain this information, GAO analyzed program and national survey data, interviewed officials in 5 states and 11 counties, held 12 focus groups with mothers with limited English proficiency, and interviewed experts and HHS officials. GAO recommends that HHS help states explore cost-effective ways of collecting data on the primary language of CCDF subsidy recipients and that HHS develop means of reviewing how states provide access to CCDF subsidies. In comments, HHS generally agreed with the recommendations and provided additional information on its actions and plans to implement them. Appended are: (1) Scope and Methodology; (2) Analyses of the Effects of Limited English Proficiency on Child Care and Early Education Patterns; (3) Comments from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; and (4) GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments. (Contains 15 tables and 4 figures.) [This document was produced by the U.S. Government Accountability Office.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (1758K)

Descriptors:
Federal Legislation; Educational Improvement; Mathematics Achievement; Reading Achievement; Models; Educational Legislation; Scores; Disadvantaged Youth; State Standards; Educational Change; Change Strategies

Abstract:
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) requires that states improve academic performance so that all students reach proficiency in reading and mathematics by 2014 and that achievement gaps close among student groups. States set annual proficiency targets using an approach known as a status model, which calculates test scores 1 year at a time. Some states have interest in using growth models that measure changes in test scores over time to determine if schools are meeting proficiency targets. The Chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce asked the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to testify on its recent report on measuring academic growth. Specifically, this testimony discusses: (1) how many states are using growth models and for what purposes; (2) how growth models can measure progress toward achieving key NCLBA goals; and (3) what challenges states face in using growth models especially to meet the law's key goals. (Contains 11 footnotes, 7 figures, and 2 tables.) [This document was produced by the U.S. Government Accountability Office.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (959K)

Descriptors:
Federal Legislation; Educational Improvement; Models; Sample Size; Academic Achievement; Educational Objectives; National Surveys; Measurement Techniques; Educational Improvement; Evaluation Methods; Accountability

Abstract:
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) requires that states improve academic performance so that all students reach proficiency in reading and math by 2014 and that achievement gaps close among student groups. States set annual proficiency targets using an approach known as a status model, which calculates test scores 1 year at a time. Some states have interest in using growth models that measure changes in test scores over time to determine if schools are meeting proficiency targets. To determine the extent that growth models were consistent with NCLBA's goals, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) assessed: (1) the extent that states have used growth models to measure academic achievement; (2) the extent that growth models can measure progress in achieving key NCLBA goals; and (3) the challenges states may face in using growth models to meet adequate yearly progress (AYP) requirements and how the Department of Education (Education) is assisting the states. To obtain this information, a national survey and site visits to 4 states was conducted. While growth models are typically defined as tracking the same students over time, GAO used a definition that also included tracking schools and groups of students. In comments, Education said that this definition could be confusing. GAO used this definition of growth to reflect the variety of approaches states were taking. Appended are: (1) Scope and Methodology; (2) Selected Data from GAO's Survey of States' Use or Consideration of Growth Models; (3) Comments from the Department of Education; and (4) GAO Contract and Staff Acknowledgments. (Contains 8 tables and 11 figures.) [This document was produced by the U.S. Government Accountability Office.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (1507K)

Descriptors:
Supplementary Education; Technical Assistance; Pilot Projects; State Programs; Program Evaluation; Program Effectiveness; Federal Legislation; Educational Improvement; Mathematics Achievement; Reading Achievement; Educational Legislation; Scores; Socioeconomic Influences; State Standards; Educational Change; Change Strategies

Abstract:
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA) requires districts with schools that have not met state performance goals for 3 consecutive years to offer their low-income students supplemental educational services (SES), such as tutoring, if these schools receive Title I funds. SES are provided outside of the regular school day by a state-approved provider, with responsibility for implementation shared by states and districts. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) examined: (1) how SES participation changed between school years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005; (2) how SES providers are working with districts to deliver SES; (3) how states are monitoring and evaluating SES; and (4) how the Department of Education (Education) monitors and supports state implementation of SES. To collect data on SES, GAO surveyed all states and a nationally representative sample of districts with schools required to offer SES. Also, 4 school districts were visited, and 22 SES providers were interviewed. SES-related research was reviewed, and Education staff were interviewed. GAO recommended that Education disseminate information on promising practices used to improve SES implementation, provide states with technical assistance to improve evaluation of SES's effect on student achievement, and expand program flexibility where appropriate. Education generally supported GAO's recommendations. Appended are: (1) Scope and Methodology; (2) Comments from the Department of Education; and (3) GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments. (Contains 10 tables and 7 figures.) [This document was produced by the U.S. Government Accountability Office.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (1124K)

Descriptors:
Federal Legislation; State Standards; Scores; Language Arts; Mathematics Tests; Instructional Leadership; Elementary School Students; Limited English Speaking; Teacher Education; Language Tests; English (Second Language); Academic Achievement; School Districts; Student Evaluation

Abstract:
In school year 2003-2004, state data showed that the percentage of students with limited English proficiency scoring proficient on a state's language arts and mathematics tests was lower than the state's annual progress goals in nearly two-thirds of the 48 states for which data was obtained. To help these students progress academically, state and district officials in the 5 states visited, reported using a variety of strategies, including training teachers to incorporate language development into academic classes. Further, the review of data 49 states submitted to Education showed that the performance of students with limited English proficiency on states' mathematics assessments for elementary school students was lower than that of the total student population in all of these states but 1. Although the student groups are not mutually exclusive, in most of the 49 states, the performance of students with limited English proficiency was generally lower than that of other groups, such as economically disadvantaged students. Factors other than student academic knowledge, however, can influence whether states and districts meet their academic progress goals for students with limited English proficiency, such as how a state establishes its annual progress goals. To support improved academic progress for these students, district and state officials that were spoken to within the 5 study states reported using strategies similar to those considered good practices for all students. In particular, they cited providing teacher training focused on these students, having school leadership focused on their needs and using data to target interventions as key to the success of these students. Appended are: (1) GAO's Group of Experts on Assessing the Academic Knowledge of Students with Limited English Proficiency; (2) Determining Adequate Yearly Progress for Student Groups; (3) Percentage of Districts Making AYP Goals for Mathematics for Students with Limited English Proficiency; (4) Proficiency Scores on Mathematics Tests for All Students and Students with Limited English Proficiency; (5) Enhanced Assessment Consortia Participation; (6) English Language Proficiency Assessments Used in the 2005-2006 School Year, by State; (7) Comments from the Department of Education; and (8) GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments. (Contains 6 tables and 7 figures.) [This document was produced by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, formerly known as the General Accounting Office.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (2121K)

Descriptors:
Federal Programs; Military Personnel; Alternative Teacher Certification; Teacher Education Programs; Program Evaluation; Participant Characteristics; Teacher Recruitment; Labor Turnover; Program Administration

Abstract:
With the 2002 enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA), GAO was mandated to review the Troops-to-Teachers program, which provides financial assistance and counseling to help military personnel obtain their teacher licenses, especially in priority subject areas, such as math and science, and find employment in high-need districts and schools, as well as public charter schools. The U.S. Department of Education oversees the program, which received nearly $15 million in fiscal year 2005. This report identifies: (1) the number and characteristics of program participants and factors affecting participation; (2) the recruitment and retention of participants in high-need districts and priority subject areas; and (3) the steps Education has taken to facilitate program management. The following are appended: (1) Objectives, Scope, and Methodology; (2) Comments from the Department of Education; and (3) GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments. (Contains 5 tables and 5 figures.) [This report was produced by the United States Government Accountability Office.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (885K)

Descriptors:
Early Intervention; Young Children; Transitional Programs; Compliance (Legal); State Government; Disabilities; Federal Legislation; Educational Legislation; Access to Education; Eligibility; State Programs

Abstract:
Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was established to ensure that infants and toddlers with disabilities, from birth to age 3, and their families receive appropriate early intervention services. Within the Department of Education (Education), the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) is responsible for awarding and monitoring grants to states for Part C according to IDEA requirements. To address questions about how states have implemented IDEA Part C, this report provides information on: (1) how Part C programs differ in their eligibility criteria and whom they serve; (2) to what extent states differ in their provision of services and funding; and (3) how Education and state lead agencies help support and oversee efforts to implement Part C, such as identifying children for services and transitioning children to follow-on programs, such as IDEA Part B. GAO recommends that Education provide states with additional guidance on transition planning and services, especially for children who would enter Part B during the summer. In comments on our draft, Education cited an ongoing study of general transition issues. When Education verifies the results of its study, it should use that information to inform guidance to states on transition planning. [This report was produced by the United States Government Accountability Office.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (4480K)

Descriptors:
Federal Legislation; State Standards; Teacher Qualifications; Teacher Effectiveness; Web Sites; Users (Information); Information Services; State Standards; Federal Aid; Government Role

Abstract:
This GAO report examines response of 47 states to the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) of 2001 that established qualification requirements for teachers of core academic subjects that must meet by the end of the 2005-2006 school year. With the deadline approaching for all teachers to meet the requirements, GAO was asked to examine the following: (1) the status of state efforts to meet NCLBA's teacher qualification requirements; (2) the use of Title II funds in selected districts; and (3) how the U.S. Department of Education (Education) monitors states and assists them with implementation of the requirements. To help states address the issues of teacher quality and ensure that all teachers meet NCLBA's qualification requirements, the GAO recommends that the Secretary of Education explore ways to make the Web-based information on teacher qualification requirements more accessible to users of its Web site through such activities as more prominently displaying the link to state teacher initiatives or enhancing the capability of the search function. Appended are: (1) Activities on Which States and Districts Can spend Title II, Part A Funds; (2) State- Reported Percentage of Core Academic Classes Taught by Teachers Meeting NCLBA's Teacher Qualification Requirements in the 2003-2004 School Year; (3) Sample HOUSSE Procedures from Two States Visited; (4) Comments from the U.S. Department of Education; and (5) GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments. (Contains 4 figures, 4 tables, and a short list of abbreviations.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (1431K)

Descriptors:
Federal Legislation; Student Evaluation; Disabilities; Educational Assessment; Student Participation; Testing Programs; State Standards; Inclusive Schools; Evaluation Methods; Alternative Assessment

Abstract:
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 has focused attention on improving the academic achievement of all students, including more than 6 million students with disabilities and requires that all students be assessed. Students with disabilities may be included through accommodations, such as extended time, or alternate assessments, such as teacher observation of student performance. To provide information about the participation of students with disabilities in statewide assessments, GAO determined (1) the extent to which students with disabilities were included in statewide assessments; (2) what issues selected states faced in implementing alternate assessments; and (3) how the U.S. Department of Education (Education) supported states in their efforts to assess students with disabilities. GAO recommends that Education explore ways to make information about inclusion of students with disabilities more accessible on its Web site and work with states, particularly those with high exclusion rates, to explore strategies to reduce the number of students with disabilities who are excluded from the NAEP assessment. Appended are: (1) Percent of Students with Disabilities Participating in State Reading/Language Arts Assessments in the 2003-04 School Year, by State; (2) Comments from the Department of Education; and (3) GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (676K)

Descriptors:
Federal Regulation; Educational Policy; Government Role; Accountability; Academic Achievement; Elementary Secondary Education

Abstract:
This chapter discusses the federal government's role in strengthening accountability for student performance under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). NCLB represents a major legislative expansion of the role of the federal government in elementary and secondary education, and it has had significant implications for federal-state relationships. A special focus of the new law was the "adequate yearly progress" (AYP) measure, which had been included in the 1994 law as an aggregate measure of school progress in meeting state proficiency goals. Under the 2001 law, AYP had to be disaggregated for major subgroups, and there were more specific consequences when districts and schools did not meet AYP. Highlights of these key new requirements included the following: (1) A 100% proficient deadline was set for all students, and disaggregated data were used to determine AYP toward that deadline; (2) Graduation and participation rates were included to ensure high levels of student participation in testing; (3) Test requirements were added; more grades were tested in language arts and mathematics and a science assessment was added; (4) States are required to participate in the NAEP; (5) Actions are required when Title I schools do not meet state AYP; (6) Strategies used must be grounded in scientifically based research; and (7) Teachers are required to meet a federal definition of highly qualified. Additional funds were appropriated for states, schools, and districts to help implement the law. Table 1 shows the accountability requirements that the 1994 law put in place and additional requirements under NCLB that apply to states, districts, and schools. [This article represents Chapter 7 of "The Elementary and Secondary Education Act at 40: Reviews of Research, Policy Implementation, Critical Perspectives, and Reflections," "Review of Research in Education," v29, 2005 (EJ748131).] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's Web Site